Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 484 posts

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#191

Post by wisty »

pinaceae wrote: post #47
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

If the law is selectively applied, it's not the rule of law. I think you'll find a lot of people here will think that they threw the book at him, because he challenged the system.

And Snowden is actually in the same boat here. He's not military, but he had clearance, so he's liable for quite a bit. I'm not sure which court would trial him, so there might be some differences.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#192

Post by cynicalkane »

zeteo wrote: post #77
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

After WW2, the Allies condemned and executed a number of German and Japanese officers who had done little more than follow orders. What they had done was not against any laws at the time, and definitely within their organizations' code of conduct. I think that was a good thing because it established the principle that joining an organization does not absolve you from higher duties towards your fellow citizens or huma…

Those officers oversaw the intentional mass murder of millions of Jews and Chinese.

That's slightly more serious than the secrets Manning leaked. And by "slightly" I mean "an unguessable number of orders of magnitude."

They only executed those officers for which they could prove this was the case, which is why only a few dozen were executed.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#193

Post by [deleted] »

mokus wrote: post #177
monsterix wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever thought of the guys who were behind the machine gun for God's sake?

If Manning were aware of particular abuses, why didn't he release documents only about those particular abuses? If he wasn't, why did he release anything? This sounds like a case of "I know the evidence is in there somewhere, so let's throw it all out there and see what sticks." When prosecutors do this, we call it a "fishing expedition", and we don't like it at all. Why should we like it _more_ when a vigilante does…

[deleted]

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#194

Post by VladRussian2 »

pinaceae wrote: post #47
zeteo wrote: post #35

>Manning, 25, was convicted last month [...] The government had asked [for] 60 years. “There is value in deterrence, your honor; this court must send a message [...] National security crimes that undermine the entire system must be taken seriously.” This is not the rule of law. It is a government that is increasingly relying on citizen ignorance to secretly make and implement policy, and on savage reprisals to terror…

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

>No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct.

now that you mentioned it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_United_States_Fight...

....

b. Your obligations as a U.S. citizen and a member of the armed forces result from the traditional values that underlie the American experience as a nation. These values are best expressed in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which you have sworn to uphold and defend. You would have these obligations—our country, your service and unit and your fellow Americans—even if the Code of Conduct had never been formulated as a high standard of general behavior.

...

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#195

Post by hackinthebochs »

rdl wrote: post #180

It's probably unpopular here, but I think Manning leaked what he did not as a principled whistleblower, but as a confused/spurned/etc. kid. And deserves substantial punishment for betraying his oath as a member of the military and TS clearance holder for ultimately personal reasons (and doing it in a stupid way). Snowden, on the other hand, was quite principled. One might argue he went about it the wrong way (should…

I completely agree. It does a disservice to people like Snowden to have Manning lumped in the same pile as them.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#196

Post by monsterix »

mokus wrote: post #177
monsterix wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever thought of the guys who were behind the machine gun for God's sake?

If Manning were aware of particular abuses, why didn't he release documents only about those particular abuses? If he wasn't, why did he release anything? This sounds like a case of "I know the evidence is in there somewhere, so let's throw it all out there and see what sticks." When prosecutors do this, we call it a "fishing expedition", and we don't like it at all. Why should we like it _more_ when a vigilante does…

So you agree that the employer is a criminal, but we're yet to see any action against the remaining criminals.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#197

Post by j2d3 »

crgt wrote: post #170
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

Do the rules prohibit, say, a General lying to Congress?

It may be that one set of rules (the UCMJ) requires him to lie (about this particular topic), while another set of rules make lying to congress illegal.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" often put people into paradoxes where they were required by one set of rules to not disclose their sexuality while another set of circumstances + rules required them to disclose it (ie., not lie), or face penalties.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#198

Post by ballard »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84
pinaceae wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is the Armed Forces code of conduct. He broke the laws of his organization, was before a court of that same org. This is internal. Once you wear a uniform, other rules apply. secrecy has a different impact, loyalty as well. Civilians might not like it or even understand, but Manning hopefully did when he chose to join the Armed Forces. Snowden is different, just a contractor. But Manning joined the club, bro…

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

I firmly believe that Manning did a service to society.

However, there is something my grandfather, an Air Force crypto guy, used to say: "... Have a fair trial and then hang the guilty SOB." To me, this always came off as blind obedience and "kangaroo court" justice.

Re: Judge sentences Bradley Manning to 35 years

#199

Post by jlgreco »

ballard wrote: post #198
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilians might not understand." Fuck you. It doesn't take a military mind to understand the difference between right and wrong and how little either has to do with institutional rules. This country once took a firm stand that military orders were no excuse for committing or condoning evil acts, when it suited our purposes at Nuremberg. We abandoned that stand the moment it became inconvenient, in Vietnam if not ear…

I firmly believe that Manning did a service to society. However, there is something my grandfather, an Air Force crypto guy, used to say: "... Have a fair trial and then hang the guilty SOB." To me, this always came off as blind obedience and "kangaroo court" justice.

Blind obedience is what they want.

It should not be what society wants though. I think that has been made painfully clear in the past, but some people still just don't seem to get it.

Post reply on HN